Because Obama is about paradigm shift and he’s views them as part of the old paradigm he’s replacing.

http://quinhillyer.com/breaking-news-coburn-now-open-to-gop-nomination/

Will you rally around Tom Coburn if the inconceivable actually happens in Cleveland, or will you continue to collaborate with tyranny?

He’s an Ivy League graduate, Harvard to be exact, and majored in philosophy. Of course he has a good grasp of reality.

Used to think that. But the man has a tough time expressing a coherent argument, verbally or in writing (or tweeting, as he seems to enjoy). His intro to Pence seemed stilted, at best, even reading from prepared notes, made worse with his off the cuff rambling.

Used to think that. But, the man flips, flops, and flips again. We already know about his flexible policy stances. Everything he stands for is mutable. Maybe because he had money on the line, he was more focused in his RE business. He seems a man that cares nothing about what it means to be President, only that is a prize he wants – like a big game hunter looking for a head to mount on his wall, and will say and do anything to get it (to an extreme that other politicians won’t / cannot go and still be credible).

Used to think that. But, the man has a tough time organizing a proper campaign, and has been blindsided on several fronts. Maybe he will surprise us with getting it all together in time for a win in November. But, I’d bet not.

Right, he is not stupid, and he certainly brings far more accomplishment to the table than Obama ever did (though one can argue if he was as much of a “success” as he’d have us believe, given his starting point – doesn’t help that he doesn’t release his tax returns). But, citing his experience as a developer is not so easily translatable to being the man with the right skills (let alone temperament, and philosophy) to lead the office of POTUS, especially in light of the above.

His performance in his campaign has been less than inspiring, let alone convincing, and THAT is what most counts. He is far from the complete package, relying on a “Not Hillary” sentiment.

If Trump wins, it will be despite himself, rather than what he brings to the table (other than his fame), nor the brilliance of his organizational and campaign skills.

One more thing, you said, “I think that Obama would dearly love to do the equivalent of what Erdogan did, ….. imprisoning the opposition, including journalists and jurists who criticize him.”

Two things, first I agree he would love to do it but his model would not be Erdogan, his model comes from the manifesto “Prairie Fire”.

Second, not going to happen here. The support is not there and despite 7.5 years of chiseling away, the institutions are still too strong.

However, things do change over time, which is why this election is so important. Some say the left is trying to recreate 1968. I think they are trying to recreate 1917.

So some juice box mafia brat blurts out,
“From everything I know about Trump – not just his temperament and his character, but his actual ideas about politics and leadership – he simply doesn’t have what it takes.”

Like you (but not a vehemently), Trump is not my preference, but at this point, he’s the only viable alternative to a continuation of the present failed policies

Here’s a short piece regarding Trump and some of those very complaints from Scott Adams blog. I give Scott Adams credit for more maturity, intelligence, and certainly persuasion.

When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.

If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.

But if a person’s main objections to Trump include any the following four reasons, I would consider it ethical to apply persuasion.

Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.

Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business because he has several bankruptcies.

Objection 3: Trump is a racist.

Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT

If any of those four objections are behind an anti-Trumper’s opinion, you have ethical license to persuade, so long as you are sticking to facts and adding context. I’ll show you how to do that with each objection.

Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.

Persuasion: Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature. And people don’t suddenly change character at age 70. (That last sentence is the important one.)

How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage. He was against the Iraq war. He doesn’t want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.

Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn’t hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.

Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren’t afraid of his personality type. Trump often tells us that his first bid in any negotiation is super-aggressive. China knows it too. They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman.

Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business, as proven by his several bankruptcies.

Persuasion: Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500. Then ask if that is a good performance for an entrepreneur who is often trying things in new fields.

(Asking questions in that fashion is good persuasion technique. It removes the adversarial frame and gives the person a sense of coming to a new conclusion without pressure.)

Then explain how licensing works. Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That’s an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail. Trump gets paid either way. All parties to the deals have lawyers who review everything. Trump isn’t taking advantage of people with his licensing deals. Licensees are knowingly accepting the riskier side of the deal because they also have the biggest potential upside.

Trump doesn’t like risk. We see it in lots of ways. For example, Trump has never been in a physical fight. He asked his wives to sign prenups. He creates separate entities so some can go bankrupt without bringing down the rest. He licenses his name so he gets paid even if the company buying the license does not make a profit. And he diversifies his portfolio to reduce exposure to any one risk.

Based on everything we see, Trump consistently tries hard to avoid risk in everything he does. And people don’t change character at age 70.

The exceptions to Trump’s risk-avoidance include some of the provocative stuff he is saying during the campaign. That behavior looks risky to most observers, but it was exactly what got him the Republican nomination. Evidently, Trump takes risks when doing so makes sense.

Objection 3: Trump is a racist.

Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise. Then point out…

Mexico is a country, not a race.

Islam is open to all races.

If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)

Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge’s parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.

Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election.

(Professional pundits will talk about Trump’s so-called “racist dog-whistles,” but normal voters do not mention it. They don’t know what it means.)

Objection 3.1: But Trump wants to discriminate based on religion!

Persuasion: Clarify to the subject of your persuasion that Trump only wants to discriminate against non-citizens. That is literally the job description of a president.

For context, point out that Islam is unique among religions in that it includes an order from God that Muslims should overthrow any government that is not compatible with Islam. Moderate Muslims around the world ignore that part of the religion, but refugees are coming from places where it is considered mandatory.

I don’t think other religions have a mandatory requirement to overthrow the government. So comparisons to other religions are nonsense. And the job of the president includes knowing when to make exceptions.

If you think we can screen Muslim immigrants well enough to stop all of the terrorists and future revolutionaries, just think about any job in which you had coworkers. Remember how incompetent some of them were? Those are the types of people screening immigrants. Does that feel safe to you?

Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT

Persuasion:

Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers’ views on women and the LGBT community.

Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves.

Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.

The women in his personal life — including his ex-wives — seem to like him.

Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point.

The way to know your persuasion is working is that your subject will change the topic instead of addressing your point.

Example:

You: Mexico is not a race.

Subject: Well, Trump also had bankruptcies.

Don’t allow the topic to change. Instead, say again whatever you said just before it did. Make each point about three times, with slightly different wording each time. After the third restatement of your point, without an objection from your subject, allow the topic to change. It means you won.

Since when did rules matter to Obama?

Careful with that word “surely”…

What greater friend could China and Putin have in the UN than Obama as SecGen?

France and Britain can be… persuaded.

What position would not be a step down in prestige for Barry? What better podium from which to lecture the world is there?

And, Barry would have minions to do the work, you don’t actually expect him to actually do anything, do you? He can’t even be bothered now with national security updates…

Each in turn, is in a position to veto such a nomination — and would SURELY do so.

Barry would never be acceptable to Red China, nor Russia.

I’d say that even France and Britain would gag.

BTW, being General Secretary of the UN would be a HUGE step down in prestige for Barry — and quite an UP load in work.